On Point blog, page 108 of 117
Binding Authority – Published Wisconsin Court of Appeals Opinion
State v. Steven G. Walters, 2003 WI App 24, reversed on other grounds, 2004 WI 18
For Walters: Jenelle L. Glasbrenner, David A. Danz
Issue/Holding:
¶25. We cannot ignore the arguments offered by the State at the trial court level at both the motion to exclude before Judge Race and the motion for reconsideration before Judge Carlson. We are troubled by the district attorney’s arguments that a trial court is free to ignore published decisions of the court of appeals.
Appellate Procedure – Harmless Error – Jury Instructions – Misconduct Evidence
State v. Timothy M. Ziebart, 2003 WI App 258
For Ziebart: Robert R. Henak
Issue/Holding:
¶26. Where the trial court incorrectly instructs the jury, this court must set aside the verdict unless that error was harmless; that is to say, unless there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the conviction. State v. Neumann, 179 Wis. 2d 687, 703, 508 N.W.2d 54 (Ct.
Writs – Supervisory – John Doe Proceeding, Review of
State ex rel Unnamed Persons v. State, 2003 WI 30
For Unnamed Persons: Franklyn M. Gimbel, et al.
Issue/Holding:
¶48. On balance, we conclude that Wisconsin Constitution, Article VII, Section 5(3), read together with the language in Wis. Stat. § 808.03(2) and in Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 809.51(1) including “other person or body,” is sufficiently broad in scope to permit the court of appeals to exercise supervisory jurisdiction over the actions of a judge presiding over a John Doe proceeding.
Guilty Plea Waiver Rule – Issues Waived — Suppression — Preserved by § 971.31(10)
State v. James S. Riedel, 2003 WI App 18, PFR filed 1/27/03
For Riedel: Ralph A. Kalal
Issue/Holding:
¶8. At the outset, we reject the State’s threshold argument that Riedel is precluded from challenging the trial court’s suppression ruling based on Riedel’s conviction on the OWI charge and the dismissal of the PAC charge. The State reasons that Riedel’s appeal lacks a justiciable controversy because he has failed to argue that he would not have pled to the OWI charge if the trial court had granted the suppression motion or that the OWI evidence would have been insufficient absent the blood test results.
§ 904.04, Misconduct Evidence – Appellate Review – Inadequate Trial Court Reasoning on Admissibility – Remedy
State v. John P. Hunt, 2003 WI 81, reversing unpublished order of court of appeals
For Hunt: Rex R. Anderegg
Issue/Holding:
¶43. The State maintains that the court of appeals erred in interpreting Sullivan. We agree. Sullivan does not state, as the decision of the court of appeals suggests, that in situations where the circuit court fails to set forth a detailed analysis for admitting or excluding other-acts evidence,
Binding Authority – Law of the Case – Effect of Summary Affirmance
State v. Paul J. Stuart, 2003 WI 73, on certification (subsequently reversed on other grounds, State v. Paul J. Stuart, 2005 WI 47)
For Stuart: Christopher W. Rose
Issue/Holding: Supreme court disposition of an earlier appeal via summary order is law of the case as to subsequent appeal; the order resolved a question of law despite failing to state reasons: though an affirmance of a discretionary ruling may not determine a question of law,
Binding Authority – Wisconsin Case Law, Subsequently Reversed “On Other Grounds”
State v. Gary M.B., 2003 WI App 72, affirmed on other grounds, 2004 WI 33
For Gary M.B.: T. Christopher Kelly
Issue/Holding: A court of appeals holding in a case reversed by the supreme court on other grounds, so that this holding was neither “overruled, withdrawn, or modified,” continues to bind the court of appeals. ¶13.
The court of appeals had held under similar circumstances to Gary M.B.’s that defensive use didn’t trigger waiver,
Guilty Plea Waiver Rule: Constitutionality of Statute
State v. Phillip Cole, 2003 WI 112, on certification
For Cole: Michael Gould, SPD, Milwaukee
Issue/Holding: Although a facial challenge to the constitutionality of a statute is not waived by a guilty plea (because such a defect would go to subject matter jurisdiction, something not subject to waiver), an “as applied” challenged is waived by the plea. ¶46.
Mootness — General
State v. Lindsey A.F., 2003 WI 63, affirming 2002 WI App 223, 257 Wis. 2d 650, 653 N.W.2d 116
For Lindsey A.F.: Eileen Hirsch, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding: ¶7 n. 5:
As a general rule, this court will not consider an issue which will not have any practical effect upon an existing controversy. State v. Leitner,
Cross-examination — Bias — Pending Charges
State v. Jon P. Barreau, 2002 WI App 198, PFR filed 8/12/02
For Barreau: Glenn C. Reynolds
Issue/Holding A witness’s pending criminal charges are relevant to bias, even absent promises of leniency. ¶55. In this instance, the trial court prohibited cross-examination about whether the witness was receiving benefits from the state for his testimony, but only after the witness testified outside the jury’s presence that there were none.